Case Details

Bench: Hon�ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Date of Judgment: 12th January, 2024

Parties:
Petitioners/Revisionists: Sanju, Dhanpal, Satendra, and Sher Singh
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No.1), Sunil (Complainant/Respondent No.2)

Subject Matter

The case involved the validity of the trial court�s decision to summon four individuals under Section 319 CrPC, based on the statement of a prosecution witness during the trial of a double murder case.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 319 CrPC: Power to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.
• Section 397 CrPC: Revisional powers of the High Court/Sessions Judge.
• Section 401 CrPC: High Court�s power of revision with safeguards for accused persons.
• Section 147 IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148 IPC: Rioting while armed with deadly weapons.
• Section 149 IPC: Liability of members of unlawful assembly.
• Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.

Factual Background

The incident occurred on 25th August 2021 in Uttar Pradesh, resulting in the deaths of Amar Singh and Man Singh. Initially, four individuals were charge-sheeted. However, during trial, the complainant Sunil (PW-1) implicated the revisionists as participants in the assault, leading the trial court to summon them under Section 319 CrPC. The revisionists challenged this order in the High Court.

Legal Issues

• Whether PW-1�s testimony during trial justified invoking Section 319 CrPC?
• Was the standard of evidence under Section 319 CrPC satisfied?
• Was the revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC maintainable?

Arguments by the Revisionists

• Their names were absent from the FIR and original charge sheet.
• PW-1�s testimony was uncorroborated and emerged only during trial.
• Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and on compelling evidence.
• The evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold to summon new accused.

Arguments by the State and Complainant

• The summoning order was based on a credible eyewitness testimony.
• Section 319 CrPC is meant to prevent guilty persons from escaping trial due to gaps in investigation.
• A single trustworthy witness can justify summoning new accused if the testimony is credible.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be used with caution. Citing precedents such as Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal, the court held that:

• The evidence must be strong enough that, if unopposed, may lead to conviction.
• PW-1�s late, vague, and uncorroborated statements did not meet this threshold.
• No specific roles were attributed to the revisionists, and they were never mentioned earlier despite PW-1 being the original informant.

The court found the summoning order lacked evidentiary support and amounted to a misuse of legal process.

Final Verdict

The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the trial court�s order dated 17.10.2023, and set aside the summoning of the revisionists. It ruled that no compelling evidence existed to justify their prosecution and dismissed the summoning as contrary to legal principles.